Exploding ACA Premiums: Why Hillary's Proposed Extension of Obamacare Will Not Help Americans

"What really troubles me is the assertion that we ought not aspire to achieve the best, most equitable and just solutions to our most serious problems because that is unrealistic, politically infeasible and dooms us to fail. This criticism of Bernie Sanders' platform is really unsettling.This argument that we ought to tamp down our political aspirations has taken many forms as it is oft repeated by those politicos who seem terrified that Bernie might actually win the Democratic presidential nomination" - Donna Smith, on smirkingchimp.com

To see and hear Hillary proffering her "pragmatic" solutions to the ongoing  health care cost crisis, (in the last debate with Bernie Sanders), was enough to make a cynic laugh. In fact, anyone aware of the facts on the health care situation to do with Obamacare (aka the ACA) would be more likely to cry. As per a Wall Street Journal article ('Insurers Flag Deepening Losses on Health Care', Feb. 11, p. A1, A10) Obamacare this year is looking at a "36.8 percent increase in premiums."

Yep, you read that right. And to add insult to injury,  the increase in key prescription drugs (that seniors especially use) will likely increase in cost even more. This will force  them to have to choose between groceries and meds. A Hobson's choice if ever there was one.

If Hillary - who plans to keep the ACA as it is - has any real plans to fix this broken program one wonders how she will do it so it doesn't bankrupt most citizens. As the WSJ article notes, the problem at root is serious losses by the insurance companies that Hillary insists be kept in the loop - but Bernie Sanders wants to ditch as the major contributors to the problem.

The article cites Humana, Inc. as the "latest to flag its losses" which are expected to total $176 million including this year. Meanwhile, Anthem Inc. barely broke even and UnitedHealth Group, Inc. "said it had losses of about $475 million on its 2015 ACA plan business and booked $245 million projected 2016 losses"

These results have led to (p. A10): "negative margins of 3 to 4 %  on individual plans" and paved the way for the expected increases in premiums. After all, if as Obama and Hillary demand,  health care be kept a business (since insurers are part of the mix) then profits will be incorporated. The profit expectations will also be continuously  increased so higher and higher premiums must be expected. Further, with further losses on the ACA's horizon the insurers are already looking to even greater premium rates in 2017.According to Roy Vaughn of Blue Cross Blue Shield (ibid.):

"The insurer will need to seek another rate boost for 2017 to try to get us to a level that makes us sustainable".

But, of course, none of these ACA plans will be sustainable so long as younger citizens, especially of the healthier 22- 30 age group, refuse to sign on. The whole basis for the ACA in the first place was that the total medical burden would be shared, and so younger,  healthier ACA signees would ensure lower costs for the sicker, older ones. But this isn't happening.

Leading one to ask if Americans are really, really prepared to put up with this BS. The only plan that can work, in fact, is Bernie's 'Medicare for All', though WSJ cynics like Holman Jenkins Jr. (in a recent column) insist Sanders is nuts to offer it because seniors would "never allow a raid by everyone else on their Medicare:"   Seriously? Other needy citizens represent a "raid"? Seems Jenkins like the other tools really do want to start an intergenerational war.

After all, to the conservatives and especially the Reepo -backing jackals of the WSJ,  we are not all in this together, we are each man (or woman) for himself and devil take the hindmost. Charming! Social Darwinism at its most fecal and feral.

But Medicare seniors aren't out of the hole either so long as drug costs are not controlled. I can aver to that having had to spend a lot of money on prescription drugs this year just to get a gout attack under control, as well as an ear inflammation. Fortunately, like millions of other seniors, I didn't have to choose between food and meds. Many millions do!

Critics of Bernie's single payer proposal like to make it out as "pie in the sky" but I guess those who say that would rather have bankruptcy and "shit in the face". NO? Then what's the alternative? If you are just going to accept the status quo of the ACA - which even Obama admitted wasn't perfect - then it means greater and greater health care costs will have to be borne each year. This, even as the rest of the advanced world laughs at our venal stupidity and myopic sense of priorities.

"Heh, heh, heh, look at those dumbass yanks! They finally got a guy running for president who can help dig them out of their health cost hole and they want to toss him down a drain. Fuckin' idiots!"

If we want to prove our exceptionality to the other advanced nations (whose citizens enjoy health care as a right),  then we need to prove we can not only do it too - but better.  This as opposed to lamenting every goddamned day that "it's too costly", "it's too impractical", "it's too socialist" blah blah blah.  Because truly exceptional nations don't make excuses for not attaining the ultimate security for their citizens: their health without massive debt.

We have a choice, and it is a real one: Stick with the status quo of higher and higher health and drug costs as Hillary insists we do, or break free and liberate our propagandized collective consciousness. But the latter means choosing Bernie, and then - after he gets in -joining with fellow energized citizens to raise holy hell to make sure our reps act on our behalf. It will be difficult, make no mistake, but you tell me what other choice we have?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/donna-smith/65964/dear-americans-please-stop-dreaming-of-a-better-nation

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/65965/is-bernie-sanders-promising-free-stuff-to-buy-votes

Excerpt:

The idea that things We the People “get” from government is just “free stuff” misunderstands the purpose of government. We the People established our government as a mechanism for all of us to decide to get together to do things that make our lives better. In a democracy, if We the People decide it is a good idea to, for example, have public schools, does that qualify as “free stuff?” Or is it an investment in making our lives better? And, while we’re at it, an educated population makes the society better.

Obama Must Be As Good as His Word and Not Let Himself Be Rolled Again by the PUKES!

Depiction of Obama from two years ago when he basically allowed the country to be extorted by the Reepo Economic Terrorists. This time he needs to approve the debt ceiling limit increase under Executive order- under the 14th amendment - even if brings on a constitutional crisis.


In a heartening speech yesterday Obama basically said that the nation was being held hostage on two counts - with the upcoming potential gov't shutdown if  Obamacare isn't defunded for a year, and with raising the debt ceiling to pay the nation's bills. In the latter case, if the GOOPs are allowed their extortion gambit again, it may well mean another credit downgrade, stocks crashing and people suffering.  One news anchor, Scott Pelley, on CBS New last night noted from his correspondent (Nancy Cordes) in the field, that Social Security checks could well stop going out by early November if a shutdown ensues and the debt ceiling isn't raised. For sure, all 401 National Parks will close, and service members' checks as well as military death benefits will be delayed. Thank your local Tea bagger fascist for that!

Obama responded that such a debacle would "not occur on my watch". In other words, he is not prepared to deal again with these terrorists "with bombs strapped to their bodies"  - which is literally what it amounts to. In this case, an economic "bomb" that will affect tens of millions of innocent citizens.  But will Obama hold strain, or allow himself to be rolled again by the extremists in the Tea Party? As Bill Clinton observed last night on a CBS news segment, their tactic is simply to try to dictate to Obama their terms, and not negotiate at all. This is the standard terrorist modus operandi, and in that case it requires the standard response: NO deals, no matter what transpires.

Now, it is a shame, a pity in fact, that some 33%  (in a recent CBS News poll) place the blame on the Dems for this impasse and impending economic crash, but they are either congenitally dumb, fundamentally ignorant or Reepo Foxites.  Anyone with more than air between the ears knows the reprobates are those who threaten a nation via extortion , i.e. "You will do so-and-so or these will be the consequences.",  or seek to dictate their own terms with horrific results for millions if they aren't accepted.

This time the way to deal with these thugs is obvious. In the case of the potential shutdown, given more sane Reeps are against it in the Senate, there is no issue on refusing to make any deals. The fallout will be largely on the heads of the Teepee House which Boehner has shown he can't control. That means someone must exercise adult authority over them, and that has to be Obama. So, don't give in, let the cards fall where they may, but don't yield....not one inch, not one nanometer!

They will demand "spending cuts" in return for paying debts already owed, but this nuts. The graph below shows the spending cuts ought to have occurred under Bush II's term, since the spending increases were actually MUCH greater during his rein, yet the debt ceiling was raised 7 times without fanfare!
The numbers in the chart come from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012. They are just the amounts that the government spent and borrowed, period, Anyone can go look then up. People who claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are either misled or are trying to mislead, stupid or outright lying to gain specious political advantage.

One can easily see that over his tenure Bush's deficits consistently increased and at his last budget showed a $1.4 trillion deficit. This was fobbed off directly onto Obama.

Bush's overall spending increase was 88% over his time, vs. 7.2% for Obama. If anything, Obama's spending immediately after he took office wasn't enough, and we ought to have had at least double the stimulus he implemented and with NO tax cuts!


In the case of the next round, over the debt ceiling, the solution is also clear as day. If the Reepos won't raise it to pay existing debts then Obama needs to do so on his own, and fuck them and their terrorist ways. The Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 4),  stipulates:

The validity of the Public Debt of the United States, authorized by law, includes debts incurred for payment of pensions ....and shall not be questioned.

It is clear to me that if the Republican Congress refuses to act to raise the debt ceiling (and thereby honor the validity of paying the Public Debt) then President Obama can and MUST issue an Executive Order to override a putatively derelict Congress and invoke Article 4 of Amendment XIV to raise the debt ceiling himself. If this triggers a "constitutional crisis" then let it be! If the Reepos are going to act in an extremist way you must be MORE extremist in the interest of the nation. You cannot roll over again. Or evince a scenario such as depicted in the bottom cartoon from two years ago.

We have in fact, because of the Teepees and their lot, been leading up to a showdown for some time, given the polarization in the country. What better way to resolve it than via a constitutional crisis?  I am fully convinced, given what's at stake, that even the Roberts Supreme Court will see where the national interest lies and side with Obama  - if he has the courage to raise the debt ceiling limit on his own authority - given the congress has devolved into reckless simpletons who can't be trusted with the keys to the congressional rest rooms, far less the nation's economic welfare.

Give in to these turds again, as he did two years ago, and Obama will only be recalled as a weak and timid wuss who was unable to deliver more than tough rhetoric in the nation's moment of need.

Will the GOP's Psychopaths Shut the Government Down?

The clock is ticking and thanks to the Tea Party clowns holding the GOP hostage, the whole nation may be held hostage within a week - if a government shutdown ensues.

Make no mistake, that these reprobates have already shown themselves to be "mean-spirited" class warriors. They don't care about their fellow Americans other than to use them as leverage in their insane extortion gambits. Basically, as wifey observes, they "are criminals and vermin". And this is a woman not given to hyperbole.

In his must-read recent column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman castigates House Republicans for slashing funding for the Supplementation Nutritional Assistance Program (aka SNAP or food stamps) and defends the program as an example of “public policy at its best.” Krugman  correctly argues that SNAP’s growth is not a sign out-of-control government spending, as Republicans have said, but rather of the program responding to increased demand in the wake of an ongoing economic crisis. He writes:

SNAP, in short, is public policy at its best. It not only helps those in need; it helps them help themselves. And it has done yeoman work in the economic crisis, mitigating suffering and protecting jobs at a time when all too many policy makers seem determined to do the opposite. So it tells you something that conservatives have singled out this of all programs for special ire.

Even some conservative pundits worry that the war on food stamps, especially combined with the vote to increase farm subsidies, is bad for the G.O.P., because it makes Republicans look like mean spirited class warriors. Indeed it does. And that’s because they are.

What can be done to stop the mayhem? At this point, very little. While a recent CBS News poll shows 53% of Americans want the parties  to "compromise" to avoid a shutdown, it is very difficult - if not impossible- to negotiate with psychopaths, and economic terrorists. Let's be clear what these psychos demand to avoid a shutdown: a defunding of Obamacare, which technically means taking it off the table for one year.

While it sounds mild and not so draconian it is in fact very draconian because the dirty secret is that inflation IS increasing. You just have to look at the food prices, fuel costs and increasing prescription and medical costs. Never mind the Federal Reserve's phony baloney, low-balled inflation statistics - which leaves all those inputs out. So, the point is that by putting the Affordable Care Act in hibernation for one year, all its costs will explode on re-emergence to the point that the original deficit control aspects of the law will no longer apply. Make no mistake the Foxites, Teepees and their racist bigot ilk will all happily point this out too.

A one year defunding also ensures the Act will lose significant viability, while also leaving millions of struggling Americans in the lurch.  People who would have been able to join exchanges this coming year and avoid being refused health care - because of their pre-existing conditions - will be screwed. College age or older kids (to age 26) will no longer be covered under their parents' policies and have to find their own. Meanwhile, insurance 'caps' will be reinstated for policies meaning parents with high- need kids (e.g. autistic, disabled)  will see policies expire and they will be left to cover costs.

Women also stand to lose big time. While women typically only earn 73 cents on the dollar relative to men, and their health insurance premiums are typically 40% higher (think: breast pumps, pap smears, more medical visits in general than males have) , the ACA ensures a level playing field with women paying no more than men for premiums. Add to that the fact the gov't will subsidize premium payments for those needing it, and just about everyone should be screaming in the streets for the GOP to do the right thing - no pun intended!

It is simply too high a price to pay to comply with extortion which is what it amounts to. "Pay up or we shut everything down!" 

What of the shutdown itself? Well, it can be partial or total depending on how far the crazies will go  - and bear in mind this is the same lot that ultimately didn't accept rational cutting of THEIR favorite programs (i.e. military) 2 years ago,  which led directly to the automatic sequester and its ongoing  indiscriminate cuts.

 If the shutdown is partial, the damage can likely be contained and many essential services can continue. Social security payments are critically mandated, as are Veterans' benefits, but they are by no means untouchable in the event a shutdown is prolonged. People need to be aware of this and pay no attention to the lies from some sources that it's "no biggie" and the Dems are "using fear tactics".

Let's hope sanity ultimately prevails, but don't look for any on the Reepo-Tea Bag side!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/why_nobody_without_insurance_should_skip_obamacare/

Another Noonan Gasbag Moment!

Peggy Noonan (Declarations, 'Obama Above the Fray for Now', WSJ, p. A13 today) is incensed because American women are starting to catch on to Rick Santorum and the fact the GOP is waging war against them. While other conservo columnists (i.e. Kathleen Parker) have correctly pointed out that the GOP "lost it" by proposing a Virginia law that amounted to rape (an intra-vaginal ultra sound) Noonan doesn't get it at all. But what's new? Noonan has always had her pet GOP-advancing agenda, never mind how many millions of women will be irreparably hurt by it!

According to Noonan in her column, poor Rick Santorum is "trapped in a web laid by the administration's claim that the furor over the Obamacare mandate isn't about religious freedom and abortion drugs it's about crazy people trying to take away your contraceptives"

Well, duh! But in fact, Noonan cartoons the problem as is her modus operandi. The issue isn't that government officials will actually come in and seize contraceptives as if in some drug bust (though to hear and see Santorum's past statements that's still feasible) but that all contraceptive drugs...the pills. ..will simply be allowed to rise to astronomical price levels, via drug "tiers". It's done all the time, and one reason so many in Medicare's Part D prescription drug program, for example, end up in the 'donut hole". Case in point, my aciphex which has just been put up to tier one and now costs $460 for 90- pills, when three years ago they cost $50 for 30 pills. Do the math! That's $1.66 a pill to $5.11.

Now, consider that the Reeps needn't physically barge in and "take away" a woman's pills, merely make them so damned expensive (via negotiating with drug companies to put them in higher cost tiers) that they become unaffordable. Or worse, a liability - say if a woman believes she can only take them every other day. As for condoms and diaphragms, no surprise that some reeps once joked about lowering QA manufacturing standards to make it more probable that "the damned things will tear when least expected".

Then what? Well, one arrives at the GOOPer's fondest wish: accidental parenthood! Never mind they don't want to pay for child care or medical care after the kid is born! (That would require taxes!)

Thus, Noonan's next claim that:

"This is as big a lie as you can tell in politics, and a deeply mischievous one"

is simply bollocks. It definitely isn't a lie because Noonan doesn't want to believe it, or hear it, nor does it "only muddy the waters and adds a new layer of meaningless alarm"

Because make no mistake, American women have every right to be alarmed! The Virginia fiasco law of mandating a putative medical device to rape them in order to be allowed to have an abortion in that state, ought to have sounded five alarm bells. If it didn't, then American women are comatose - and that refers specifically to the younger ones in the 18-22 age category, who made a large difference in the 2008 elections and need to turn out again. Even if that means standing for hours in a state motor vehicle office to get a proper photo ID card.

American women simply cannot allow themselves to be lulled into false complacency by the likes of Peggy Noonan, then wake up when it's too late to discover Rick Santorum or Mitch Romney or Newtie Gingrich (via Executive order) has taken away all their physical and sexual autonomy - rendering them Gooper chattel. Or to put it another way: "Always subject to being barefoot and pregnant".

How far can these despicable cretins go? How far can they and an accessory church that used to help Nazis escape to South America go in attacking the women of this nation? I recall a conversation with German friends, former Wehrmacht soldiers, in May of 1985 who recounted horrific tales of what Hitler did under his "Reich laws". One of the first things was to make birth control a felonious crime in the Nazi dictatorship. The reason? To use any form of birth control was to defy the need for the Aryan state to provide members of the Master Race, and also to provide new soldiers for the Wehrmacht. Those women caught practicing it for any reason....were dispatched to the camps: Chelmno, Treblinka, Buchenwald. Often placed under the supervision of brutal female S.S. guards until they either perished of disease, torture, malnutrition, or in the gas chambers.

Now, I am not saying any Goop that gets in will go that far. However, if his party grabs all branches of the government it's not beyond the realm of possibility to believe any of them will be seriously emboldened to exercise even more extreme actions than rhetoric hitherto. What I am saying is we already know this party features extremists who've made their hatred and distrust of women abundantly clear. They couch and conceal that hatred in the language of "religious liberty" and freedom, but the subtext is pure hate ....no different from what the Catholic Inquisitors met out to hundreds of thousands of women ...ripped and shredded over their torture racks and open pits.

My question then is, why give them ANY chance to wreak havoc on any woman, of any age? Why even remotely entertain the possibility of a new "Inquistion" directed at inflicting pain, shame and humiliation on those who are already up against it?

What the Catholic Bishops Still Don't Get

Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami who bellyached to his RC flock on Sunday about "overeaching and unprecedented state power into the doman of religious freedom". Is he aware he's threatening his Church's tax-exempt status?


"Pelvic Morality" was a term used for decades to describe the unhealthy obsession of the Roman Catholic Church with the human pelvic region, including the female vagina, fallopian tubes and ovaries, as well as the male organs, including the seminal vesicles and testes. One philosopher has suggested this obsession dated from the time of St. Augustine (fresh from his Manichean mental domination) and the belief that female carnality was a refuge of demoniality.

Well into the Middle Ages this view persisted, manifesting in the belief (often echoed by Church Fathers such as Aquinas) that sins such a adultery demanded much more severe physical punishment of the female than her offending male counterpart. This was because by her nature she was deemed closer to the demonic hordes. Indeed, a widepsread belief among prelates late into the Enlightenment was that male virtue and mental acumen was easily "ensnared in female wiles and the flesh". Hence, the recommendation of those like Aquinas for the female body to taste the whip when caught out in such things as adultery, or simply fornication before marriage. (See also Ute Ranke-Heinemann's: Eunuchs in the Service of Christ).

On the male side, the Church's pelvic fetishists obsessed over the intrinsic nature of human sperm (spermatocytes) which were viewed as "homunculi" or tiny -miniature humans, at least until the first microscopes with sufficient power showed otherwise. Hence, any mischievous spilling of seed could not be countenanced, lest these miniature humans perished in a pleasure-induced "holocaust". Thus, the fierce proscriptions against masturbation, and the Vatican's pronouncements of being "mortal sins".

Wearing their little brains out, prelates locked away in their ivory towers and behind hallowed halls of ivy also concluded that if any artificial contraception was used - say in the marriage act- it had to become reduced to no more than "mutual masturbation" since the "natural outlet for new life" was impeded. If a married woman did this, then she could be no better than a whore - hence the recent recounting by columnist Gail Collins of how a long time friend went to confession, confessed her use of birth control to some old fart padre, and was told in a loud voice: "Then, Missus.....YOU are a WHORE!"

But do these assholes really know anything? Hardly! In today's WSJ, for example ('Contraceptive Plan Still Draws Heat'. p. A8) we are informed that:

"At masses across the country Sunday, Roman Catholic priests blasted the Obama administration's compromise on contraceptive insurance coverage".

Hmmmmm...... let me grasp this: RC padres across the nation are fulminating against Obama's contraceptive compromise? Have they not paid attention to the specific IRS rules, regulations that demand absolutely NO politicking or political rhetoric (which is what this is) if churches are to retain tax exempt status?

Clearly, then, since all these padres have violated those statutes, the Church's tax exempt status needs to be revoked forthwith! One can't exercise this clause for the evangelicals and not apply it to the Catholics!

In the same piece, another numskull - a Rev. Michael Quinn of San Francisco, is quoted as saying "this is our Rosa Parks moment!"

Uh, no dope-wad, it isn't! You see, NO one is telling you to stop your most fundamental beliefs! You can still believe in the immaculate conception, Transubstantiation- the whole works! Hell, you can still demand your own faithful follow that stupid, archaic birth control edict (that tries to preserve those tiny spermal homunculi...for the positive outcome of conception). But what you cannot do is exercise influence and occupy the public square while denying those who are NOT Catholics and who work in that public square, contraceptive benefits.

See, the analogy to that would be like Rosa Parks telling all the white people they can't be seated on that bus so long as black folks are on it! Get your analogies straight for once, douche brain.

Then another rotund, overfed twit, Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami (see photo) bloviated about "overeaching and unprecedented state power into the doman of religious freedom"

Hardly! The actual "over reach" is the specious use of your own specious doctrines to deny health care rights via insurance that other employers are bound by laws - both state and federal - to give. So don't hand me that bollocks!

All of these Jacobins so exercised about their precious "religioous freedom" would do better to read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed "Beyond Pelvic Politics" in today's New York Times. As Kristof notes:

"A 2009 study looked at sexually active American women of modest means, ages 18 to 34, whose economic circumstances had deteriorated. Three-quarters said that they could not afford a baby then. Yet 30 percent had put off a gynecological or family-planning visit to save money. More horrifying, of those using the pill, one-quarter said that they economized by not taking it every day. (My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health.)

One-third of women in another survey said they would switch birth control methods if not for the cost. Nearly half of those women were relying on condoms, and others on nothing more than withdrawal.

The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women. "

Like me, Kristof is also puzzled by how many RC folks are really offended or if this is a case of the Bishop's bark trying to impress us that there's a mass "bite" lurking somewhere behind it. As he writes:

" it’s not clear how many people actually are offended. A national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans. "

If a majority are behind Obama's compromise why the hell aren't they telling these noisome toads, the Union of Catholic Bishops, to STFU? One wonders! Why aren't Catholic women walking out of masses when these nitwits begin their scathing attacks on Obama and his policies? Are they that bound to the point of succumbing to a kind of perverse "Stockholm syndrome"?

Finally, I totally concur with Kristof when he concludes:

"I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population. "

Bingo! And it's time for Catholics to tell their padres and Bishops that it's past time to move beyond the human pelvis in terms of forging a realistic morality - as opposed to a cheap moralism to use as a political brickbat!

Did Obama Effect a Compromise or Cave in?

That is the question I asked this morning as I watched Obama's presser to do with the contraception uproar in the wake of his Affordable Care Act provisions. As I noted in the last blog and previous ones, there was really no need to change or do anything. Given we have the separation of Church and State in this nation, than anything a church-based entity does in the public space must be subject to government oversight and guidelines. It is the same thing with these odious "faith based services" which were hatched since Bush's reign. Thus, they are not permited to proselytize using government money that many of us (atheists and secularists) pay, nor can they practice any hiring discrimination, say of gays, Jews or atheists while on the government dime.

It ought to have been the same with Catholic institutions operating in the public sphere and providing contraceptives to workers.

But alas, 100 stupid old celibate male freaks, the Catholic Bishops, got their panties in a snit and were determined to make a political deal out of this whole issue. They were led by the likes of the black- robed Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan, a guy obviously oblivious to the needs of Catholic women, or any women!

Once alleged Catholic "liberals" like WaPo columnist E.J. Dionne joined the fray on the side of the patriarchy, and assorted other groups and charities, it was all over except for the dirges. After the Repukes entered and claimed this as a wedge issue, one could smell surrender not far away, I mean, there was too much of a political firestorm. Some women's groups - such as led by Sen. Barbara Boxer, tried to provide some support for Obama's position but it was too little and too late. What Obama really needed was a measured counterforce PR strike to match the intensity of the Reich Wing reactionary howlers and whiners. Bottom line, he didn't get it.

One wonders where the Catholic women were in all this, but perhaps like those suffering from "Stockholm syndrome", they were peremptorily shut down or shut up, either by their conservative pro-church mates or the Church's paleolithic prelates, or the Church's noisome PR that "government was infringing on religious liberty" when nothing of the sort transpired. After all, NO churches were asked to provide contraceptives as part of health plans, only Catholic public institutions like schools, universities and hospitals that occupy the public space - consume its resources, and are granted tax exempt status.

And so, Obama advisors like David Plouffe saw no out other than the one today, in which once more Obama attempted to split differences. Interestingly, in an MSNBC Roundtable, the head of Planned Parenthood praised the compromise and to be sure, Obama's words were that if the church-based institutions refuse to pay for contraceptives (which they surely will) the women will be able to demand it from insurers, and his Affordable Care Act will contain revisions to ensure they pay up.

But there's the rub. There's absolutely no assurance they will pay up. Indeed, it is more likely any of these private insurers will raise a stink about the added expense of having to eat co-pays for contraception. From today's front page story in The Miami Herald (http://www.miamherald.com/):

"The White House says covering contraception saves insurance companies money by keeping women healthy. But the plan is likely to meet resistance from insurers. Although administration officials are right that contraception is cost effective, insurers may well argue that it's not free, either. And the industry might balk at what amounts to a coverage mandate on it.”

And to be sure, this may also be why Obama delayed responding (or confecting a "compromise") for so long because he knows the costs will be enormous and in an austerity environment the insurers will likely squawk and even take their case to the Supremes.

Consider: if it costs on average $600 a year to supply contraception to women who need it, and some 10 million will - under the Affordable Care Act, then that is $6 billion a year - not exactly chump change. Apart from the fact the insurers could drag this thing out in court for years, there are also other strategies they might employ so they don't have to eat the costs - including passing increased premiums and co-pays onto other members.

So, no, to many of us this won't be good enough and the plan ought to have remained where it was: the Catholic enterprises eating the costs in return for which they are granted tax exempt status to operate! As it is, there's absolutely no assurance - not 100% - that these sanctimonious miscreants still won't accept what's on offer from Obama. Indeed, as the lead story in The Miami Herald this morning observed:

"But the U.S. Conference of Bishops withheld its endorsement, saying it was too early to say if Obama's policy changed had met core concerns of the Catholic church. "

So these deluded fools and reactionaries, protectors of priestly pedophiles over the past decade, could still try to browbeat Obama into further retreat. And make no mistake, he can't afford to backtrack again, or even be perceived as giving in to these Jacobins.

So, did Obama effect a compromise in the true sense this morning, or did we witness a cave-in? The answer, alas, will have to await the manner in which this plays out. If women end up having to pay the co-pays after all, and insurers refuse to go along or use court delay tactics, we shall have to take it as a political cave-in with some fancy PR attached. But we will all know by then that effectively he tried to put lipstick on a pig.

NO! To Any Compromise with Religious Whackjobs!

Obama's health masterpiece, his Affordable Care Act, has seen enemies galore crop up since its passage, all determined to take it down despite the fact it has helped or will help millions of Americans, including: by allowing adult children up to the age of 26 to be put under their parents' insurance coverage, and disallowing medical insurers from employing the ruse of "pre-existing conditions" to block coverage or invoke much higher rates than otherwise would be available.

In addition, its recent provisions to enable coverage of contraception (which will particularly benefit the poor and working class) are monumental in terms of: raising the economic stability of families which simply can't afford more mouths to feed, and making abortion much less necessary since 6 of 10 abortions today are performed more as a default family planning method than merely "murdering a fetus". In other words, provide real birth control and abortion will become a thing of the past. Beyond this, nearly 1.5 million American women each year rely on contraceptives to provide medical relief for symptoms not at all associated with birth prevention (see the article by Barbara Boxer et al in today's WSJ, p. A17).

But despite this, there is risk of Obama's administration willingly diluting the last aspect of his plan, which will be a major setback - all to appease the frothing at the mouth religious crazies- especially the Roman Catholics - and their apologists in the media, as well as their Reich wing political whores. The news in today's papers, i.e. WSJ, 'Obama Seeks Deal on Birth Control', p. A5, is therefore extremely unsettling. It means, again, the administration may backtrack on the planned implementation of a benefit because howlers and moralistic banshees can't abide it.

As I already blogged,

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/catholics-need-to-make-choice-and-stop.html

most of this screechifying and tumult is totally unjustified because the birth control dictate is based on the Magisterium, or teaching office of the Catholic Church. It was NEVER EVER issued "ex cathedra" or "from the Chair of St. Peter" - meaning it is NOT AN INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT!

If not infallible, then it CAN BE WRONG!

In his marvelous book, Infallible?, Hans Kung indeed observed (p. 143):

" no one, neither Vatican I, nor Vatican II, nor the textbook theologians, has shown that the Church - its leadership or its theology - is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."

Kung was questioning the very doctrine of "infallibility" itself, but his statement applies with special force to all claims or "moral proclamations" issued under the Magisterium basis. Why do so many Catholics refuse to see or acknowledge this before mounting their moral high horses?

Indeed, WHY are we paying any attention to this moral posturing at all given this Church has lost ALL its moral authority and credibility over the past decade after condoning thousands of cases of priest sexual abuse and rape of children and trying to cover the crimes up? Do their pronouncements on ANYTHING - whether fornication, contraception, masturbation or even homosexuality ....mean one damned thing? Hardly! They could as well be given the same gravitas as chattering apes or baboons in a zoo or bellowing winos on a street corner. So why pay attention to them?

Regarding the early years when the priest sexual abuse crisis exploded, Clayton Sullivan in his book 'Rescuing Sex from the Christians' cites quotes from assorted sources to the effect that the Catholics' fetishistic pseudo-moral obsession with sex acts has been a prime contributor to a spate of crimes, as well as mounting "anti-clericalism". He quotes Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University thus:

"The Catholic Church's teaching on human sexuality is that every sexual thought, word, desire and action outside of marriage (and some within - as for example use of contraception) are deserving of eternal punishment and Hell if the sin is not properly confessed and absolved."

Which is laughable irony given one is likely confessing such "sins" to a priestly pederast!

But in reading this sort of moralist bollocks one is led to inquire into exactly how the Church evolved to be such a ninny-ish, hyper-scrupulous nanny over sexual acts when humans are largely risen apes and not fallen angels anyway. The answer, as it turns out, carries us as far back as the time of St. Augustine, one of the most influential Church Fathers.

Augustine of Hippo was originally a Manichean, and like his peers, practiced contraception. While he converted to Christianity in 387 CE, the only Manichean tenet he ditched was the contraception. He retained all the other flesh/pleasure = demonic connotations and interjected them into his various teaching including his 'letters'. (For more on this, see the excellent monograph 'Eunuchs For the Kingdom of Heaven' by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, Doubleday, 1990).

Most scholars, like Ranke-Heinemann (and also Elaine Pagels, the author of 'Adam, Eve and The Serpent') believe Augustine's stance altered owing to a passage in the bible to do with Onan "spilling his seed". As Augustine himself writes:

"It is impermissible and shameful to practice intercourse with one's wife while preventing the conception of children. This is what Onan did, the son of Judah, and that is why God killed him". ('The Adulterous Relations', II, 12).

In fact, this false interpetation of the Onan passage is also what is probably responsible for engendering the masturbation bogey. Since from then, "spilling seed" was equated to "onanism" and onanism to masturbation. The acceleration of this erroneous conflation was due to an English Puritan, and physician, named Bekkers. This whacko wrote (in 1610) the polemic entitled Onania or The Loathsome Sin Of Self-Pollution, that one could expect:

"Vomiting, nausea, weakening of the organs of breathing, coughing, hoarseness, back pain, lack of libido, paleness, thinness, pimples on face, loss of memory, attacks of rage, madness, idiocy, malapropism, epilepsy, nightly ejaculations, stiffness, fever, and finally suicide".

Thereby recounting almost every normal human travail, but in his mind.....all as a result of practicing the solo act of sex relief (which if recent sexual statistics are to be believed, is practiced much more frequently among all races and nationalities than all other sex acts combined!)

Of course, the then Church seized on this and extrapolated it to contraception, thereby equating that to "mutual masturbation".

Now, getting back to Onan - his sin was in reality neither a form of contraception (coitus interruptus) or masturbation but rather an offense against the Hebrew law of succession wherein the nearest male relative of the deceased husband is obligated to fertilize the wife. He refused, spilled his seed instead, and was guilty - not of seed-spilling but refusing provision for succession.

Now, Augustine's Manichean teachings (after his conversion) held that any sexual pleasure whatsoever was diabolical in origin. However, it could be countenanced IF a baby was the end product. Otherwise, the offending parties were "trafficking with demons" . (He cites at one point, for "proof", the demon Asmodeus, "who slew seven men in 7 beds with seven women, but not when they were sitting at a table.")

Before I continue, can anyone ....anyone with a grain of sense and intelligence inform me as to why a Church in the 21st century is harkening back to such horse shit as a means to lead its nearly 1 billion followers? (I will return to this at the end!)

Augustine's harsh and sterile dogmas probably spurred the Church Father Origen (of Adamantius) to cut off his own sexual organs because he was unable to control them. Since each 'stimulus' enabled a particular demon (e.g. Asmodeus, Belial, Baal) to gain a foothold, it was better to get rid of the putative pudendal avenues.....offenders?.... entirely. So much for nightly boners!

The poison of the Church's fraudulent, misguided teachings goes even further than this, as noted by former Franciscan priest Emmet McLoughlin (Crime and Immorality in the Catholic Church, 1962, Lyle Stuart Books). That is, unlike the Manicheans, they include sins of THOUGHT. Thus a person who even briefly entertained an "impure thought" could as easily be earmarked for hell as one who actually committed the acts. McLoughlin blames this implanted neurosis for the astounding and disproportionate number of Catholics then in psycho wards and in prisons (cf. 'Let the Statistics Tell Their Tragic Story' , pp. 189- 214, 1962).

"Natural law" itself was fashioned mostly on the basis of the cogitations of St. Thomas Aquinas, who in turn was influenced by Augustine. It is also important to note, that natural law applied to more than just sexual issues - but those are the ones it's most often tied into. For example, slavery also used to be justified under natural law, since the Church's Fathers argued that some men were "naturally unable to govern themselves and had to be told what to do. This was for their own good". (See: 'Contraception and Holiness: The Catholic Predicament')

What do we find from all this? The common thread throughout Church history is the pre-occupation with and obsession over minor sexual acts, commonly performed- those that every human being does ....some more frequently, some less. This includes even including sexual fantasies (also widespread) as earning a person's "soul" a spot in the nether regions of Hell, probably with the most fire.

So what's up with this continued antiquated defense of these indefensible moralistic suppositions when any sane religion ought to have retired them to the same place as torture of heretics, and burning the feet and genitals of sexual apostates in boiling oil? The short answer? It continues a pseudo-manifestation of power since this pathetic Church has lost it in most other arenas. It is no longer a worldly power like it was at the time of the Borgias, nor are its derelict doctrines even paid much attention to as it experiences the largest ouflow from its membership of any Christian sect each year. (Some 22 million Catholics have said hasta la vista in the past 10 years according to Pew Research study).

The only thing that halfway keeps it afloat in this country is new immigrants, mainly from largely Hispanic nations like Guatemala, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua etc.

And what about clinging to these archaic doctrines like for contraception? (Which, btw, Pope Paul VI's own Papal commission recommended he reject lest the Church lose its larger moral perspective. The Pope, prodded by the likes of antiquated Cardinals in the Curia refused, and the rest is history). The reason is simple: to be able to exert control over their flock’s collective gonads and hence their very lives. (See also the excerpts attached from Arthur C. Clarke's published views on the previous pope and contraception, from a 1993 issue of Free Inquiry).

So long as these moral charlatans have their easily duped members by the balls, how far will they stray? Recall most still believe in the absurd Hell bogey. Hence, we see even some Catholic University students - as one ABC News last night- prepared to hold out and defend "Holy Mother Church" from having to accept them nasty contraception plans Obama's Health plan would impose. Bull shit! Holy Mother church is a wreck and needs to get with the program. That means putting her antiquated, ancient Manichean teachings concerning sex and demons - as first taught by Augustine, into mental dumpsters.

But ....will she do that? Hell no, because to do so is essentially (in her mind) to relinquish the last vestiges of temporal and political power. I mean, look how many insane ideological whore politicos are coming to her defense, everyone from Newtie (who abandoned one wife who had cancer for another with which he wanted a "threesome") to Mitch McConnell, the same asshole that wanted to strip Medicare to its bare bones.

Meanwhile, we also see the corporate media going into overdrive trying to paint any resistance to the "Church's moral prereogatives" as inviting some sort of electoral cataclysm for Obama in November. I fucking doubt it! The fact is there is NO where else for sane people to go with their votes! I mean, c'mon! I am talking to YOU Catholics out there too! You're going to pitch a hissy fit if Obama allows his original contraceptive rules to go through and vote for MITT? The multi-millionaire who doesn't even know the cost of a gallon of milk or loaf of bread? Who joked about making a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry during the Repuke debates and later insisted that "$340 grand isn't that much money" referring to what he received in speaking fees. So he very likely doesn't know what your heating oil costs are each month either! And NEWTIE? Are you fucking kdding me? This is the guy that wants to at once, hatch a colony on the Moon but also whose tax plan will create an $850 billion deficit in its first year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And we won't even consider Ron Paul who wants to locate where all the Federal Reserve "black helicopters" are based (after he gets rid of the Fed), and would chuck all our money out as "fiat". Nor Rick Santorum, who's made it abundantly clear he'd like to issue an Executive Order prohibiting all contraception, and all abortions even in the case of rape and incest. So, Catholics are going to vote for THESE clowns, or do it via default, by not voting at all? Don't make me laugh! If Catholics do go this route, they're a lot more stupid and ignorant than even I thought - especially to defend a pseudo-moral teaching that went out with demons hiding in food (as described in the Compendium Malleficarum, demons often had to be "exorcised" from food boli, usually after being vomited up. Special attention was generally paid to "hairballs" ejected from felines and one reason millions of felines were incinerated as "familiars").

According to White House spokesman Jay Carney (WSJ, ibid.):

"There are ways, I think, to help resolve this issue that ensures we provide that important preventive service, that health care coverage to all women,...in a way that also tries to allay some of these concerns."

But Jay, I can't see it! How do you compromise with freaks - religiously -deluded fruitcakes, that still hold to doctrines that date back to the epoch of belief in demons obscuring themselves in food boli, and partaking of human sex acts? You can't make nice with insanity! You can't reason with these archaic nitwits or compromise in any way that supports rationality!

The only other way is unfair - mentioned in today's WSJ piece as being modeled after the existing plan in Hawaii, whereby employees who wish contraceptives have to pay the premiums out of their own pockets. (The result is no employer funds go to contraception).

But that means the less economically advantaged will suffer. The people, workers, who probably most need the availability of contraceptives, to prevent having more kids they can't support, will have to do without....and either give up sex, or ....take their chances. And if they lose in the latter lotto, likely resort to abortion.

This is a compromise that can't be made any more than squaring a circle. The effective compromise has already transpired and it allowed the Catholics to withhold contraceptives from their own members. They must not be allowed to do that for secular citizens who seek care at their hospitals, or work at their institutions. If they can't abide by that, then exact full penalties and let devil take the hindmost. And if they're insane enough to vote for a Mitt, a Newt or other GOOP, then so be it. I personally don't believe they are that disconnected from reality or stupid!

The unsavory but true fact in this whole charade is that it's not about "religious liberty" at all. Not any more than the Komen fiasco was about about abortions a week ago. In each case, powerful reactionary forces have used religious or moral fronts to seize on some issue to attempt to shatter the electorate and render an Obama victory much less likely. These degenerates can only succeed if we allow them to, especially those in the targeted "victim" groups (such as Catholics, or Komen supporters). Will they be the willing pawns for the nefarious moves of wealthy fascists, including corporate powers and the Koch brothers, or will they awaken to see how they're being played? We will have to hope the latter happens, but it needs to happen soon!

More on the Reich Wing Conflation Syndrome

As I showed in the previous blog, deliberate conflation serves a multitude of nefarious purposes, mainly for disinformation, misinformation and propaganda in the right wing blogosphere and media. Thus, they conflate Obama's policies with "socialism" - despite the fact the two have nothing in common as I will show. They also conflate German National Socialism (which was really Fascism) with Soviet or Chinese Socialism - Communism, despite the fact that Hitler not only dispossessed and brutalized leftists: Marxists, Socialists and commies, but dispatched them for "final solution" in concentration camps as well.

I showed, when one accesses serious resources, as opposed to comics and Faux News, one can see Hitler couldn't have been a real socialist by his very actions and policies most of which were totally antithetical to Socialist values. Thus, he didn't use trade unions to parlay them into any "workers' paradise" - he squashed them like bugs! This was needed to ensure total conformity under the Reich laws, as former members of the German Wehrmacht relayed.

Why did Hitler hate Socialists so much, with such intensity? Robert Payne in his biography of Hitler (The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler)) acknowledges it was because the originator of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a Jew. Hitler thereby erroneously inferred that Socialism was an inherently Jewish economic philosophy and its practitioners were also Jews. Hitler, like so many Americans today, committed the logical error of imputing guilt by virtue of mere association - compounded by reckless generalization.

It never occurred to Hitler or his officers to question that sort of 'cartoon' logic, even when at other times they were railing against "Jewish ownership" of the media, banks and so on. I mean, this is contradictory, since socialists don't own banks...and their media tend to be tiny with small circulations! But no one exercised an ounce of critical thought to question the contradictions of narrative!

Now, what about the conflation of Obama with a Socialist, or Socialism? This is idiotic on its face and only employed because the bloggers who do so rely on the ignorance of their audience not to be able to discriminate. But as ‘Democratic LEFT- the main organ of the Democratic Socialists of America observes, Obama is about as far from being a Socialist as I am from being a Martian. Readers can see an extensive article on this here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/22/opinion/main5180886.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesHeadlines

Socialism and the Politics of Fear

And a YouTube interview with a Temple University Professor (and REAL Socialist) here, on why Obama is not one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A_ZOWI1aLU


Why isn’t Obama a Socialist in terms of his 'Affordable Health Care Act'?

FIRST, because the bill actually isn’t new, nor is it truly universal health care (nearly 23 million stand to be left out for whatever reasons)! It was actually a recycling of the Republican alternative to what they called 'Hillary Care' proposed back in 1993. But the Goopers are too damned dumb, or ignorant of recent history, to know it! As usual, Goopers have short memories when it suits them.

In that original Republican health alternative- market exchanges would be set up to allow limited bargaining between health consumers and insurance companies. That is also a central aspect of this plan, which retains a major role for insurance companies.

In a real Socialist system, all insurance companies (as profit leeches for capitalism and market shares on Wall Street) would be eliminated! Thus, what Obama has on offer is the furthest thing from a genuine Socialist health care plan, which more normally would be based on a single payer plan such as in Canada. In this plan, the government is the SINGLE payer for insurance of the population, as opposed to over 400 insurance companies with differing rules, standards.

In this way, the single payer plan SAVES more money than any plan based on hundreds of private insurers. Since the Reeps and their toadies are always screaming about the debt, I'd have thought this would be a no-brainer for them, but evidently not. I guess they like their higher cost private insurance system which eats up more of the national income each year.

In truth and fact, it is our privately controlled health system which is hyper-charging the national debt to ever higher levels. Until that health delivery system is under control, the debt will never be managed or lowered, no matter how many spending cuts the Repukes demand. The annual inflation from health care alone is 14% a year, including drugs and isn't getting cheaper. Rationing care can only do so much, so the whole structure and pay system needs to be seriously addressed.

Oh, one more thing! When these Reep bloggers holler long and loud over "Socialism" to do with health care (including telling those of us who endorse it to "leave the country"- despite the fact the U.S. signed a UN Declaration making health care a RIGHT in 1994), I do hope they bear in mind that the biggest true element of Socialism in the American theater is Social Security! In fact, it exceeds even Medicare in this sense, because one still has to pay some large monthly fees with Medicare. So, if these bloggers are going to yap and howl over "socialism" then I expect them to forego their Social Security! If not, they're hypocrites plain and simple! You cannot reap the benefits of what little token socialism there is in this country, then howl about it and have the absolute, confounding chutzpah to tell real citizen socialists to "leave"!

Second, in doing his banking bailout back in 2009, Obama acted nothing like a real Socialist! A real, red blooded Socialist would have TAKEN over the banks! Removed all their board members and replaced them with government officials! This never occurred! The same exact thing applies to the auto company bailout (of GM, Chrysler) whose board also would have been taken over in a true socialist system and no shares issued via Wall Street - all sold and distributed to workers!

Again, this never occurred!

Third, in terms of the Bush tax cuts, a REAL Socialist never would have extended them as Obama agreed to do back in December. They would have ended one time!

Fourth, in these current debt talks, a REAL Socialist wouldn't be talking about "entitlements" being in for spending cuts as part of the mix. Oh no! IN fact, the term "entitlements" is a right wing (Reich wing) buzzword and Obama plays right into their terminology landscape when he employs it while raising the hackles of his liberal base.

Further a REAL Socialist wouldn't have ANY spending cuts period, but demand ALL tax increases!

The amusing thing to me is that there is already rampant socialism in the US of A. It’s just that it’s corporate socialism – not socialism for the masses (whose only token socialism is Social Security - which doesn't even cover all their retirement needs). In every way – using every kind of dodge, hollow law and loophole, corporations are protected from the “free market” they so readily espouse. As when the Savings and Loans were bailed out in 1989, then Long Term Capital Management was bailed out by taxpayers, in 1997. And the airlines were bailed out with billions from the public purse in 2001-02. Plus the banks in 2008 without also making their aid contingent on conditions (like no more dabbling in credit default swaps).

It is clear to the most dense denizen of these United States that all the uproar showing Obama as "Hitler", a "Stalin", etc. - all amount to camouflaged racism when all is said and done. The tea baggers know how unbecoming it would appear to have signs of Obama with the N-word emblazoned on them - so they use Hitler and Stalin, etc. depictions instead. Nice try, but we can see through it! And don't even try to BS us using a whole bunch of revisionist history pud about what Hitler allegedly did and Obama allegedly did. You just make yourselves look even more pathetic and ignorant than you are!